Yes, O'Reilly is being consistant with his beliefs. No, I don't think he has any agendas.
But his freedom zero simply doesn't hold to logic. Its suppose to be the right to license your software anyway you please.
But surely you can't place arbitrary restrictions? The law doesn't allow you to force people to give up your first born son or not allow you to use the software if you are black, hispanic, or Richard Stallman.
Is it right to tell people that can't disassemble their software because it would decrease their profits? Is it right to tell people they can't run the software on multiprocessor machines? Is it right to be granted permission to implant spyware into the software?
In my opinion, people need to come to their own conclusions as to what restrictions are okay with the software they use. The free software people did this when they decided they want to have access to source and the right to redistribute. And governments have every right to do this to.
I see few people addressing the principles of free software. Instead we have "Well, I believe this." "Oh yeah? Well I believe this."
Its not a matter of choice. Some choices are always forbidden. Its a matter of deciding which restrictions are acceptable, and which restrictions are not. Please, argue on these grounds. Avoid nonsense wherever possible.
"I guess simple citizen privacy is too much to ask?"
I thought we were talking about free software?
No, the GPL doesn't mandate that we let anyone access to our private records. No, free software isn't any different than proprietary software with a different license.
Governments should only turn to proprietary software when necessary. The "when necessary" part is important. No one is outlawing proprietary software.
It seems like anytime people respond with references to 1984, we've already lost any ability to compromise. So I hope that some of technologies most adept would be willing to come up with some ideas on what the solution is, rather than restating the problem and saying how we are all going to die and all that.
We already have infringement on our privacy, of course. Cops stop your car and ask people for their driver's licenses all the time. This is okay, since we don't want people without licenses driving. The rest of it is okay to that is on the card, since its okay to make sure the car is not stolen and that the person is who they say they are.
We already produce our social security number when we apply for employment or enroll for college.
Are the privacy advocates against these forms of identification?
If not, then rather than attacking every incarnation of a national identification system, propose a solution. Make a position on how far is too far as far as identification goes. Come up with a compromise.
Do you want separate medical cards (for doctors and hospitals), security cards (for airports and bands, and general cards (for street police and any of the above) instead of one card with all the above information on it? Do you want laws written on who can legally ask for the information on the card? Do you want all the information stored on the card or available in an online database? If the later, then do you want the ability to say who has access to this up-to-date information (such as former employees)?
Regardless of what the radicals believe, we (at least in the US) still live in a constitutional system. We have a Bill of Rights that guarentees we'll never come close to the kind of dystopia in 1984. That would require a radical overthrowing of our government.
Just like the restrictions placed on software, we should not complain that a certain restriction is bad, but rather remind people when and where we step the line.
In otherwords, say what you want or don't complain when you don't get it.
(this is aimed a many of the comments posted here on slashdot, if there are real privacy organization doing the above, then I wish the best)
Hello, foobar. You make a good case and I have changed my mind about the matter, except in the cases when Apple uses its control of the software against the will of the customer.
I've seen some of your replies--sorry about calling you a troll.
That's not much of an argument, I'm afraid. Not everyone gets rewarded for commiting a lot resources to a project. And your argument certainly doesn't tell me how much compensation they should get from their project.
Luckily, foobar makes a better argument for your position.
In my opinion, what is needed is not Widespread Social Change. The problem is the difference between people acting in their own self-interest and acting for the good of their community.
True capitalism believes that with the free market, self-interest is also in everyone's interest. That is why greed is considered a good thing and we have oxymorons like "good businessman". The idea is that the most wealthy people have contributed the most to society as a whole.
But look at after the industrial revolution where we have the wealthy class owning the means of production, having control over people who actually produced the goods. No wonder people were looking towards communism as an answer.
And with things like inheritance, people who own wealth aren't necessary the people who earned it. So we have a lot of the most wealthy American's who do not deserve their wealth in the first place, and some of the poorest people are simply not able to become wealthy because of their lack of wealth. This seems to me to put a large dent into at least the spirit of the Libretarian philosophy. Like my dad says, money talks and bullshit walks. He likens anything that isn't money as bullshit--bullshit being things that doesn't matter.
So, somehow, we have to get people looking to benefit everyone rather than themselves. In some ways, this already happens. The Nobel prize is awarded to people whose contributions benefit everyone. A lot of people volunteer for the armed forces out of sheer patriotism.
But with problems such as pollution and our depleting sources of energy, even international wars--people are still looking at what is most beneficial to themselves rather than everyone, looking for short term gains rather than long term progress, would rather use these important issues to enhance their political power rather than attempt to serious work on them.
So maybe you are right. Widespread Social Change may be what we do need. But how do we do that? Have we hired the wrong people into office? How do we elect the right people? How do we put the right people on the ballot? How do we convince people these are the right people? And how do we prevent these people from becoming lazy or corrupt with their power?
I took like fifteen seconds to write that post based on what was on the top of my head. If I thought it would be moderated up, I might have spend more time phrasing it right.
If you were a true geek, you wouldn't have to ask who Will Wheaten is. You would Just Know.
But, fool, you are only a nerd. The truly productive members of our technological society who runs his GCC and puts strange Paul Graham quotes in his slashdot signiture. Yet you ask who Will Wheaten is.
Posting here on Slashdot is only a sign of True Geekiness. But I must ask you, do you have a Geek Code? If you are over 16, do still own any action figures? models?
Do you watch cartoons?
These too are only signs of True Geekiness. But your True Nerd may kill the Geek within. You may spend the rest of your miserable life learning about the workings of the Universe, building vast technological systems, and watching reruns of Gilligan's Island.
But one day you become old and gray, and you suddenly discover what you believe to be the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything; and you bring forth this information to the Council of True Geekdom. And they laugh. And Geeks throughout the world learn of your pitiful endeaver and they, too, laugh.
To reconcile, you will be forced to stand on your knees and beg: "Thou art geekier than I."
And then, for the first time, you may learn what we already Just Know.
Naively, it seems the real solution is to fix the problem. In otherwords, if politics worked the way its supposed to--none of them things you list would not be on the way towards being solved. Fix the system, and the rest comes after.
It seems to me the problem is the corruption of money in politics and business. If only there is a way of causing money to loose its political power, then we'd be on the way towards a more perfect union.
Its all economics. If it saved you an extra $2 for a cheeseburger would you mind that camera staring at you from the corner? For the average Joe, I'd say no.
And the primary purpose of survelliance is to deter theft. If a potential theif sees the cameras in the story, and even better yet, a live screen showing what the cameras see, then he much less likely to commit the crime. For some reason, WalMart believes printing large bold red signs that say "Shoplifting is a Crime" in the restrooms has a similar effect.
So I guess it's Occam's Razor. Which is the simpler explanation? That the cameras are there to invade your privacy? Or are they they to deter theft?
Yeah, when you think of surveillance, what do you think of? 1984. We're all being watched, right? Except us in the States are still protected by our Bill of Rights (unless you are a libretarian, then they *are* out to get you).
But I was pondering this kind of stuff just a few days ago when I learned that all 48 stores that are owned by my employers company will have their cameras linked together by the internet. So supposedly the owner could punch in a number, and see whatever is happening in that store at a time.
What concerned me was how centralized this system seemed. It was one thing when each store kept their own security tapes which were rotated every few days, which was largely controlled by our local manager. It was another when people I don't even know can spy in on me anytime they want.
So I really don't know what to think of this. It almost seems like something they have every right to do. But who is preventing them from outsourcing the monitoring job to another company? Next thing you know, all workers in the State are being monitiored by the same people.
Just as long as they don't install a speaker system as well.
I can imagine suddenly hearing what sounds like the Voice of God bellowing "You are sitting on the counter." I look around. "Get off the counter and get back to work."
"... how do we devise a system that protects media to the extent necessary, but that ensures as much convenience to the user as possible?"
Depends on what you mean by "protecting media". Either you mean prohibit unauthorized duplication of media or prohibiting unauthorized access to media.
If the former, then people can't have superuser access to their machines.
If the later, then you got to give people a license stick for every protected media they own they they must stick into the computer to access the content. The license stick can't be transferable over the internet and it must only work for one license.
The other alternative is to turn music and movie makers into the philosophers and writers of our world: huge contributions to our culture, nothing to show for it. IOW, free access to all content.
Bitching and moaning is my god-given right. If the Free-Market-Effect doesn't work, then sometimes complaining loudly works. If enough people agree with me, then sometimes it works faster.
Its all part of capitalism. Yes, its pathetic. But sometimes it is the only way and sometimes even that isn't enough.
So quit bitching and moaning about my bitching and--damnit, fucking recursive paradoxes...
Re:Time to move to Savannah
on
Linuxworld Fun
·
· Score: 2
Yes. Damn them people. Why do they always want to change things? Things are perfect just the way they are.
"Because they're (in many cases) either not very bright or just lazy, which I suspect is what most of us get riled by."
Good thing for the phrase in parenthesis, otherwise you might seem like an elitist snob (not).
But actually, the possessive 'its' is one of the few exceptions to the possessive "add apostrophe 's'" rule. I was still making that mistake in my senior year of high school until a teacher corrected me.
And given that many people posting to slashdot probably haven't graduated from high school yet, I think making mistakes like these is okay.
But I have a question. Is European culture typically hung up on grammer like that? In the states, for the most part we don't care as long as we're able to communicate effectively.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is exactly what the congressmen from Peru suggests.
Yes, O'Reilly is being consistant with his beliefs. No, I don't think he has any agendas.
But his freedom zero simply doesn't hold to logic. Its suppose to be the right to license your software anyway you please.
But surely you can't place arbitrary restrictions? The law doesn't allow you to force people to give up your first born son or not allow you to use the software if you are black, hispanic, or Richard Stallman.
Is it right to tell people that can't disassemble their software because it would decrease their profits? Is it right to tell people they can't run the software on multiprocessor machines? Is it right to be granted permission to implant spyware into the software?
In my opinion, people need to come to their own conclusions as to what restrictions are okay with the software they use. The free software people did this when they decided they want to have access to source and the right to redistribute. And governments have every right to do this to.
I see few people addressing the principles of free software. Instead we have "Well, I believe this." "Oh yeah? Well I believe this."
Its not a matter of choice. Some choices are always forbidden. Its a matter of deciding which restrictions are acceptable, and which restrictions are not. Please, argue on these grounds. Avoid nonsense wherever possible.
"I guess simple citizen privacy is too much to ask?"
I thought we were talking about free software?
No, the GPL doesn't mandate that we let anyone access to our private records. No, free software isn't any different than proprietary software with a different license.
Governments should only turn to proprietary software when necessary. The "when necessary" part is important. No one is outlawing proprietary software.
It seems like anytime people respond with references to 1984, we've already lost any ability to compromise. So I hope that some of technologies most adept would be willing to come up with some ideas on what the solution is, rather than restating the problem and saying how we are all going to die and all that.
We already have infringement on our privacy, of course. Cops stop your car and ask people for their driver's licenses all the time. This is okay, since we don't want people without licenses driving. The rest of it is okay to that is on the card, since its okay to make sure the car is not stolen and that the person is who they say they are.
We already produce our social security number when we apply for employment or enroll for college.
Are the privacy advocates against these forms of identification?
If not, then rather than attacking every incarnation of a national identification system, propose a solution. Make a position on how far is too far as far as identification goes. Come up with a compromise.
Do you want separate medical cards (for doctors and hospitals), security cards (for airports and bands, and general cards (for street police and any of the above) instead of one card with all the above information on it? Do you want laws written on who can legally ask for the information on the card? Do you want all the information stored on the card or available in an online database? If the later, then do you want the ability to say who has access to this up-to-date information (such as former employees)?
Regardless of what the radicals believe, we (at least in the US) still live in a constitutional system. We have a Bill of Rights that guarentees we'll never come close to the kind of dystopia in 1984. That would require a radical overthrowing of our government.
Just like the restrictions placed on software, we should not complain that a certain restriction is bad, but rather remind people when and where we step the line.
In otherwords, say what you want or don't complain when you don't get it.
(this is aimed a many of the comments posted here on slashdot, if there are real privacy organization doing the above, then I wish the best)
Hello, foobar. You make a good case and I have changed my mind about the matter, except in the cases when Apple uses its control of the software against the will of the customer.
I've seen some of your replies--sorry about calling you a troll.
That's not much of an argument, I'm afraid. Not everyone gets rewarded for commiting a lot resources to a project. And your argument certainly doesn't tell me how much compensation they should get from their project.
Luckily, foobar makes a better argument for your position.
In my opinion, what is needed is not Widespread Social Change. The problem is the difference between people acting in their own self-interest and acting for the good of their community.
True capitalism believes that with the free market, self-interest is also in everyone's interest. That is why greed is considered a good thing and we have oxymorons like "good businessman". The idea is that the most wealthy people have contributed the most to society as a whole.
But look at after the industrial revolution where we have the wealthy class owning the means of production, having control over people who actually produced the goods. No wonder people were looking towards communism as an answer.
And with things like inheritance, people who own wealth aren't necessary the people who earned it. So we have a lot of the most wealthy American's who do not deserve their wealth in the first place, and some of the poorest people are simply not able to become wealthy because of their lack of wealth. This seems to me to put a large dent into at least the spirit of the Libretarian philosophy. Like my dad says, money talks and bullshit walks. He likens anything that isn't money as bullshit--bullshit being things that doesn't matter.
So, somehow, we have to get people looking to benefit everyone rather than themselves. In some ways, this already happens. The Nobel prize is awarded to people whose contributions benefit everyone. A lot of people volunteer for the armed forces out of sheer patriotism.
But with problems such as pollution and our depleting sources of energy, even international wars--people are still looking at what is most beneficial to themselves rather than everyone, looking for short term gains rather than long term progress, would rather use these important issues to enhance their political power rather than attempt to serious work on them.
So maybe you are right. Widespread Social Change may be what we do need. But how do we do that? Have we hired the wrong people into office? How do we elect the right people? How do we put the right people on the ballot? How do we convince people these are the right people? And how do we prevent these people from becoming lazy or corrupt with their power?
The answer, of course, is 42.
Funny that.
I took like fifteen seconds to write that post based on what was on the top of my head. If I thought it would be moderated up, I might have spend more time phrasing it right.
But you're right, that grammar sucks.
Why is installing software on more than one computers a bad thing?
[banning radio nonsense]
Actually, listening to music while driving keeps you from sleeping when you are driving long distances.
"...lay off phone users, many of whom are very careful and attentive drivers."
Them are not the ones I'm worried about.
How about we just band cell-phones from the uncarefull, unattentive drivers...
"Talking on a hands-free speakerphone while driving is no more risky than talking to somebody in the passenger seat..."
I'll buy that. If the passenger is a nineteen-year old bombshell with huge DD cup breasts and a short miniskirt who is touching herself all the time.
Not distracting at all.
If you were a true geek, you wouldn't have to ask who Will Wheaten is. You would Just Know.
But, fool, you are only a nerd. The truly productive members of our technological society who runs his GCC and puts strange Paul Graham quotes in his slashdot signiture. Yet you ask who Will Wheaten is.
Posting here on Slashdot is only a sign of True Geekiness. But I must ask you, do you have a Geek Code? If you are over 16, do still own any action figures? models?
Do you watch cartoons?
These too are only signs of True Geekiness. But your True Nerd may kill the Geek within. You may spend the rest of your miserable life learning about the workings of the Universe, building vast technological systems, and watching reruns of Gilligan's Island.
But one day you become old and gray, and you suddenly discover what you believe to be the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything; and you bring forth this information to the Council of True Geekdom. And they laugh. And Geeks throughout the world learn of your pitiful endeaver and they, too, laugh.
To reconcile, you will be forced to stand on your knees and beg: "Thou art geekier than I."
And then, for the first time, you may learn what we already Just Know.
There is no Spoon.
That was the first thing I was thinking as I read the article.
:)
The people on the street are lucky Wesley took the news as good as he did
you wouldn't get any.
Naively, it seems the real solution is to fix the problem. In otherwords, if politics worked the way its supposed to--none of them things you list would not be on the way towards being solved. Fix the system, and the rest comes after.
It seems to me the problem is the corruption of money in politics and business. If only there is a way of causing money to loose its political power, then we'd be on the way towards a more perfect union.
In another note, here's an interesting rebuttal to the Declan article.
Also, know the Digital Speech Project. Best not reinventing any wheels.
Its all economics. If it saved you an extra $2 for a cheeseburger would you mind that camera staring at you from the corner? For the average Joe, I'd say no.
And the primary purpose of survelliance is to deter theft. If a potential theif sees the cameras in the story, and even better yet, a live screen showing what the cameras see, then he much less likely to commit the crime. For some reason, WalMart believes printing large bold red signs that say "Shoplifting is a Crime" in the restrooms has a similar effect.
So I guess it's Occam's Razor. Which is the simpler explanation? That the cameras are there to invade your privacy? Or are they they to deter theft?
Yeah, when you think of surveillance, what do you think of? 1984. We're all being watched, right? Except us in the States are still protected by our Bill of Rights (unless you are a libretarian, then they *are* out to get you).
But I was pondering this kind of stuff just a few days ago when I learned that all 48 stores that are owned by my employers company will have their cameras linked together by the internet. So supposedly the owner could punch in a number, and see whatever is happening in that store at a time.
What concerned me was how centralized this system seemed. It was one thing when each store kept their own security tapes which were rotated every few days, which was largely controlled by our local manager. It was another when people I don't even know can spy in on me anytime they want.
So I really don't know what to think of this. It almost seems like something they have every right to do. But who is preventing them from outsourcing the monitoring job to another company? Next thing you know, all workers in the State are being monitiored by the same people.
Just as long as they don't install a speaker system as well.
I can imagine suddenly hearing what sounds like the Voice of God bellowing "You are sitting on the counter." I look around. "Get off the counter and get back to work."
"... how do we devise a system that protects media to the extent necessary, but that ensures as much convenience to the user as possible?"
Depends on what you mean by "protecting media". Either you mean prohibit unauthorized duplication of media or prohibiting unauthorized access to media.
If the former, then people can't have superuser access to their machines.
If the later, then you got to give people a license stick for every protected media they own they they must stick into the computer to access the content. The license stick can't be transferable over the internet and it must only work for one license.
The other alternative is to turn music and movie makers into the philosophers and writers of our world: huge contributions to our culture, nothing to show for it. IOW, free access to all content.
If it wasn't for taxpayer-funded programs, then why would we pay taxes?
I never understand arguments like these.
Bitching and moaning is my god-given right. If the Free-Market-Effect doesn't work, then sometimes complaining loudly works. If enough people agree with me, then sometimes it works faster.
Its all part of capitalism. Yes, its pathetic. But sometimes it is the only way and sometimes even that isn't enough.
So quit bitching and moaning about my bitching and--damnit, fucking recursive paradoxes...
Yes. Damn them people. Why do they always want to change things? Things are perfect just the way they are.
"Because they're (in many cases) either not very bright or just lazy, which I suspect is what most of us get riled by."
;-)
Good thing for the phrase in parenthesis, otherwise you might seem like an elitist snob (not).
But actually, the possessive 'its' is one of the few exceptions to the possessive "add apostrophe 's'" rule. I was still making that mistake in my senior year of high school until a teacher corrected me.
And given that many people posting to slashdot probably haven't graduated from high school yet, I think making mistakes like these is okay.
But I have a question. Is European culture typically hung up on grammer like that? In the states, for the most part we don't care as long as we're able to communicate effectively.
At least, thats my experience
"This is a country that has serious problems regarding poverty and overpopulation."
It almost sounds you want the money to fund Project Soylent Green.
I don't think of having two alternatives in GNOME and KDE as having a "choice" but rather as a fork in the operating system platform.